HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP201300027 Review Comments Appeal to BOS 2015-05-20O �
U
�'IRGII�Q"
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
May 20, 2015
Mr. Katurah Roell
2811 Hydraulic Road.
Charlottesville, VA 22901
RE: ZMA201200007 — 5th Street Commercial and SP201300027 — 5th Street Development Drive-
Thru
Dear Katurah:
Staff has reviewed your re -submittal submitted on April 20, 2015, which is requesting to amend
proffers and application plan of ZMA199900013 and for a special use permit to allow a drive-thru
on approximately 3.6 acres of property zoned HC — Highway Commercial.
We have a few questions and comments regarding your re -submittal, which we believe should be
resolved before your proposal goes to public hearing. We are always glad to meet with you to
discuss these issues: Our comments are provided below:
Comments were previously made regarding how the initial submittal addressed the principles of
the neighborhood model. You have now submitted a revised plan showing building locations,
parking area and sidewalks.
The following comments refer to the re -submittal and issues per the neighborhood model
principles that need to be addressed:
Neighborhood Friendly Streets and Paths- Include streetscape elements such as street trees, and
accommodates walkers, bikers, and public transportation so that mobility can be a reality for the
elderly, the young, and those. with limited access to automobiles.
Sidewalks and street trees should be provided on new roads constructed.
Rev. .2 The revised plan now shows some proposed street trees, landscaping and sidewalks.
Although staff may suggest a revised landscape plan, in general, this principle is met.
Rev. 3 Because of the location of this site in the entrance corridor, a fair amount of landscaping
will be expected. There is concern that utility easements may make. it difficult to provide the
necessary landscaping for this site.
Rev. 4 No Change
Parks and Open Space- Makes open space integral to overall design so that residents and workers
can walk to a public park, experience preserved natural areas, and enjoy public gathering spaces.
The Comprehensive Plan designates a portion of this site for parks and greenways.
Rev..2 You have described an intention to preserve a significant portion of the overall site as
natural areas for public use and benefit. There is no commitment to this. This principle is
partially met.
Rev. 3 Proffer 8 describes a commitment to the Greenway, but it is no longer shown on the
Conceptual Plan. The Greenway should be shown on the Conceptual Plan.
Rev. 4 The Greenway is now shown on the Application Plan. This principle is met.
Site Planning that respects terrain- Adapts development to site terrain so that natural topography
can be preserved.
Since the site plan submitted does not provide any details regarding building and parking location,
staff cannot evaluate the proposal for conformity with this principle.
Rev. 2 While the revised plan does show proposed building and parking locations, there is no
commitment to the locations of building and parking, which could change. It is not clear if this
principle is met.
Rev. 3 Although the revised plan describes a commitment to the building and parking locations,
the revised plan needs to be overlayed with the approved plan, which describes areas for
conservation easements, FEIVIA boundaries, etc. This will help determine if there is proposed
disturbance to areas that need to be protected.
Rev. 4 You have now provided the revised plan with an overlay of the approved plan. However,
several of the layers should be turned off, so that one can clearly see if there are any
disturbances proposed for areas that should not be disturbed. It appears there may be
encroachments into the stream buffer. The combined plans need to be revised to clearly depict
the areas of disturbance versus areas of preservation/conservation.
Buildings and Spaces of Human Scale- Keeps buildings and spaces at a human scale so that street
views are attractive and pedestrian friendly.
Since the site plan submitted does not provide any details regarding building and parking location,
staff cannot evaluate the proposal for conformity with this principle.
Rev. 2 The revised plan does not show any street sections or building design, and there is no
commitment to the building sizes, so it is hard to know how this principle is met.
Rev. 3 The revised plan provides square footage for the proposed buildings. The building size
seems appropriate for the site. Without knowing the actual location of areas on the site that
need to be protected it is difficult to know if there are too many buildings on the property or if
the size of the buildings should be scaled down in size. -
Rev. 4 The Architectural Review Board has addressed this principle in their preliminary review
for buildings that can be seen from the Entrance Corridor, however, there is no change for
buildings that are not visible from the Entrance Corridor.
2
Relegated Parking- Moves off-street parking out of sight and encourages on -street parking.
Since the site plan.submitted does not provide any details regarding building and parking location,
staff cannot evaluate the proposal for conformity with this principle.
Rev. 2 The revised plan shows parking along St" Street that is not relegated. This is not
consistent with the existing approved plan, which is very specific to certain site design elements,
such as relegated parking and buildings closer to the street, that show a relationship to the
street. This principle is not met.
Rev. 3 No change.
Rev. 4 No change.
More detailed comments may be provided after more detailed information is provided.
APPLICATION PLAN -DETAILED COMMENTS
Staff remains concerned with the orientation of the building closest to 5th Street. As mentioned in
previous comment letters, orienting the building closer to the street so that it has a relationship to
the street would provide good urban design. Also, staff has previously recommended relegated
parking, particularly for the parking area that is shown adjacent to 5th Street. This issue remains
unchanged.
Zoning
The following comments related to zoning matters have been provided by Ron Higgins:
1. Parking note on plan should read "gross" floor area not "grass".
2. Parking requirement should be 5.0 spaces per 1,000 gross sq. ft. for total shown of
26,300 sq. ft. This is 131.5 spaces (26,300/1,000 =26.3 x 5.0). With the daycare of
25 spaces this totals 157 for the plan. Plan shows a total of 139 proposed. Math is
also wrong on the current plan (5.5 x-25 =137.5, not 98).
Engineering and Water Resources
The following comments related to engineering and water resources for the rezoning have been
provided by Justin Deel:
The proposed improvements plan shows an inaccurate WPO buffer of 50 feet. The WPO
buffer is 100 feet and should be shown as such. Disturbances within the WPO buffer must
be approved by the program authority. Types of structures, improvements and activities
which may be allowed in a stream buffer by the program authority can be found in
Albemarle County Code 17-604.
2. The provided John McNair & Associates plan, dated 4/29/2002, shows a "proposed FEMA
100 -year flood limit" that appears to be contingent upon the topography proposed with
that plan. Your new plan, dated 3/9/2015, shows what appears to be the same floodplain
limits, labeled as "approved 100' year floodplain per approved FEMA map revision". This
floodplain limit does not appear to be consistent with the FEMA LOMR dated 8/8/2008
(below). When/how were the floodplain limits you're showing approved? Is there a more
recent LOMR for this area?
N
Albermarle County
Unincorporated Areas
510006
(_- n
FEMA LOMB 08-13-1390P
Entrance Corridor
The following comments related to the Entrance Corridor Guidelines have been provided by
Margaret Maliszewski:
1. When the ARB reviewed the site layout in February 2014, there was no objection to the
orientation of Building C as it was illustrated, with appropriate landscaping. However, proffer
#4 states that all buildings will have their fronts oriented to face 5th Street, and that
orientation is not represented in the layout of Building C. The proffer should be corrected to
accurately reflect the layout.
2. When the ARB reviewed the plan in February 2014, they made a number of comments on the
proposal. Among those comments were: Clearly show all utilities and easements on the plan.
Increase planting area to avoid planting and utility conflicts without reducing the amount of
landscaping proposed. The plan has not been revised to address the planting/utility conflicts.
The primary issue is the EC frontage trees located on and near the sanitary sewer line.
Sufficient on-site planting area has not been provided to accommodate required landscaping,
so the development can't actually be accomplished as shown. It is recommended that the plan
be revised now to show increased planting area and to show that the required landscaping can
be accommodated on site, clear of utilities and easements.
3. Note that a Certificate of Appropriateness from the ARB is required prior to final site plan
approval. A Certificate. of Appropriateness has not yet been granted. Final review (site and
architecture) with the ARB is required.
VDOT
The following comments related to VDOT have been provided by Troy Austin:
1. The traffic study submitted to VDOT for review from the County was dated 10/28/14. The
digital copies sent to VDOT from EPR upon request were dated 11/5/14 and 2/16/15. It
needs to be confirmed Which study is the correct study to be reviewed.
2. There are some concerns with how the traffic model is setup in the study. We will work
with EPR directly on correcting the model/study.
3. The application plan does not appear to reflect the traffic mitigation recommended in the
traffic study. Prior to the application plan being revised to show the proposed mitigation,
we should make sure that the traffic study is acceptable.
4. The proposed median should be extended to prevent a U-turn movement used to access
the entrance to Building A.
19
5. Internal circulation of the site may be better served if the entrance and travelway for
Building A closest to 5th Street were revised to be a one-way movement. The parking
spaces between Building A and 5t1 Street could be angled to accomplish this movement.
Proffers
1. In general, the title of the referenced plan should be consistent throughout the proffers
and should be the correct title as shown on the plan. Also if there is a revised date on the
plan, this date needs to also be referenced in the proffers.
2. Per Proffer 5 are fuel islands still shown on the Plan?
3. Does Proffer 8 refer to the correct ZMA and SP number?
4. Proffer 8. A. - Should the first reference to Section 32 be more specific?
5. Proffer 8. C. Has this been satisfied? If yes, this should be noted.
The following comments related to the proffers have been provided by Ron Higgins:
1. Proffer #1 needs to reference correct title of Application Plan and date.
2. Are fuel islands proposed? The proffer talks about them but they are not on the
Conceptual Plan.
3. Reference date for County code should be adjusted to be the time of approval of ZMA or,
remove any reference to date.
4. Building C does not appear to meet proffer #4.
5. Correct the code reference in proffer 8A to 32.7.9
The following comments related to the proffers have been provided by Margaret Maliszewski:
1. The plan title referenced in revised proffer #1 does not correspond to the title on the plan
reviewed with this request. The reference should be corrected to match the plan in
question.
The following comments related to the proffers have been provided by Justin Deel:
1. Regarding proffer 3; the proffer needs clarification and updating. It is unclear what an "in -
only entrance" is exactly. There is no "Engineering Department".
2. Regarding proffer 7; this proffer needs updating. It may need to refer to "initial site plan"
in the county process. County Engineering should refer to County Engineer.
SP- Drive-Thru
In general, the staff comments dated March 7, 2014 have not been addressed. Please see the
attached letter for your reference.
1. Of primary concern is your need to provide a community meeting.
2. We recommend you note what you have addressed versus what you do not plan to
address. Without this information, staff will have to include in a staff report to the Planning
Commission'and Board of Supervisors the unaddressed staff comments.
The following comments related to the special use permit request for a drive-thru have been
provided by Justin Deet•
1. The special use permit for a drive-through lane on the 5th Street Development has been
reviewed. The configuration of the drive-through appears unchanged from the previous
submitted plan, dated 12/9/2013. Thus the County Engineer's 20 February 2014
comments, provided below, have not been addressed. Therefore, this drive-through
configuration is recommended for denial.
5
This drive through proposal has no by-pass. It appears to have inadequate stacking. The order
or teller window has not been located, so the exact stacking layout cannot be determined. The
split entrance with very small radii is not acceptable. Lastly, the turning radius -around the
building corner is unacceptable.
As a reminder, you have an extension of a deferral until August 31, 2015. In order to have a public
hearing advertised for the Fast scheduled August Planning Commission meeting, August 18th,
material to be reviewed by staff and considered at the at public hearing must be re -submitted no
later than June 15, 2015. Please let us know how you wish to proceed with the subject rezoning
and special use permit requests.
Action after Receipt of Comment Letter
After you have read this letter, please take one of the actions below:
(1) Resubmit (within 30 days) in response to review comments on a Resubmittal Monday --
Schedule can be found at this address:
http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/forms center/departments/Community Devel
opment/forms/schedules/Special Use Permit & Zoning Map Amendment Schedule.pdf
(2) Request indefinite deferral, if you plan to resubmit after 30 days from the date of the
comment letter
(3) Request that a Planning Commission public hearing date be set
(4) Withdraw your application
If you choose to resubmit, be aware that a fee of $1,250.00 is required with your resubmittal.
Please use the form provided with this letter.
If you choose to go directly to public hearing, payment of the following fees is needed a minimum
of twenty-one (21) days before the Commission's scheduled public hearing:
$228.50 Cost for newspaper advertisement
$200.00 Cost for notification of adjoining owners
$428.50 Total amount due prior to Planning Commission public hearing
Prior to the Board of Supervisor's public hearing, payment of the newspaper advertisement for the
Board hearing needed.
$228.50 Additional amount due prior to Board of Supervisors public hearing
$657.00 Total amount for all notifications
Please confirm the final amount of the fees with me prior to payment, as the legal ads will be
combined for the SUP and ZMA request.
Notification of adjoining owners and an associated fee are not needed unless a deferral takes
place and adjoining owners need to be notified of a new date. Fees may be paid in advance and a
D
payment for both the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors public hearings may be paid
at the same time.
Please feel free to contact me if you wish to -m- eet-or need additional information. -My emai - - --- - -
address is cgrant@albemarle.org
Sincerely,
&AACA"�
Claudette Grant
Senior Planner, Community Development
C: FTV Investments, LLC
Enc: Resubmittal Schedule
Resubmittal Form
7
.r 4OF ALBS,
7>�
�'IRGIl`IZP .
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
March 7, 2014
Katurah Roell
Piedmont Development
2811 Hydraulic Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
RE: SP 2013-00027: 5th Street Development - Drive-Thru
Dear Mr. Roell:
Staff has reviewed your initial submittal for the above -referenced application for a drive-thru. We
have a number of comments on your proposal. Some of the comments identify issues that will need
to be addressed with your future site plan submittal, but the bypass lane issue is one that would need
to be addressed with a revised plan before we can recommend approval of the Special Use Permit.
Our comments are listed below.
Planning
Comments on conformity with the Comprehensive Plan are provided to the Planning Commission
and Board of Supervisors as part of the staff report. Initial comments on how your proposal
generally relates to the Comprehensive Plan are provided here:
The land use designation for this property is Community Service, Parks and Greenways and
Regional Service in Urban Neighborhood 5.
Community Service — Uses allowed in this designation include community -scale
commercial, professional, and office uses providing retail, wholesale, business, medical
offices, small office buildings, mixed-use core communities and/or employment services to
the Development Areas and larger geographic sections of the County.
Parks and Greenways — Uses allowed within this designation include public and private
parks, and existing and proposed greenways along streams.
Regional Service — Uses allowed within this designation include regional -scale commercial,
regional malls, medical centers, mixed-use developments, hotel/motel/conference facilities,
professional and corporate offices, interstate interchange developments and uses providing
retail, wholesale, business, and/or employment services to Albemarle County and the region.
The proposed use is similar in type and scale to the designated uses and to other such established
uses in the immediate area.
- ----------Although the -scope of a drive-thru-request is -somewhat limit(2d-for-full consideration -of__
Neighborhood Model principles, the proposal does provide interconnected sidewalks and based on
the plans submitted, the travelways and paths located on the site will be neighborhood friendly,
inclusive of various landscaping. Buildings of human scale have been addressed by the
Architectural Review Board in their preliminary review of this proposal and the ARB will continue
to address this issue during site plan review.
1. Per Section 33.40) of the Zoning Ordinance, Special use permits require a community
meeting. I will work with you to determine the scope of community notice for,the meeting.
2. The narrative submitted does not include the public need or benefit of special use permit
request, nor does it provide the consistency with the comprehensive plan, including the land
use plan and the master plan for the applicable development area. This information needs to
be included in the narrative.
3. The conceptual plan does not provide the typical cross-sections to show proportions, scale
and streetscape/cross-sections/circulation. The conceptual plan also does not show public
spaces and amenities. This information needs to be included on the conceptual plan.
4. There are approved plans for this site that designate areas on the property for conservation
and/or preservation. As long as these areas will still remain on the site, they need to be
shown on the plan.
5. There is concern with regards to on site circulation. Consider angle parking spaces and
making the parking/travelway one-way in order to make the circulation of traffic operate
with less congestion or conflicts.
6. Depending on the potential uses located in the buildings, it is possible that there might be
too much parking on the site.
7. More detail needs to be provided on the plan in reference to the drive-thru. Show the
location of the drive thru windows (i.e. menu station and pick-up window). We need to have
an idea of how many cars will stack in the drive-thru lane. Show how the cars will stack in
the drive-thru. Will there be a by-pass lane, and if yes, where will it be located?
Zonin
Comments have not been received yet. Once the comments are received they will be sent to you.
Engineering and Water Resources
The following comments related to engineering and water resources have been provided by Glenn
Brooks:
1. This drive-through configuration is recommended for denial.
2. This drive through proposal has no by-pass. It appears to have inadequate stacking. The
order or teller window has not been located, so the exact stacking layout cannot be
determined. The split entrance with very small radii is not acceptable. Lastly, the turning
radius around the building corner is unacceptable.
Architectural Review Board:
The ARB has reviewed the subject request for conformance with the Entrance Corridor Design
Guidelines and forwarded a recommendation of "no objection" to the Planning Commission for the
drive-thru use. The fall text of the ARB's action is copied below. Please note that the ARB's
recommendation is based on the appearance of the development as illustrated in the plans they
2
reviewed. Changes to the plan (including those resulting from requirements of other reviewing
agencies) could result in revised ARB requirements.
The following comments were provided by the ARB at their February 3, 2014 review of the
proposal:
Regarding the Special Use Permit for the drive-thru window: The Board by a vote of 5:0
forwarded the following recommendation to the Planning Commission.
1. The ARB has no objection to the proposed drive-thru use based on the layout and landscaping in
the plan dated 12/9/13.
Regarding the request for the Amendment to the Rezoning, The Board by a vote of 5:0,
forwarded the following recommendation to the Planning Commission.
1. With appropriate landscaping along the property line west of Building C, Building C need not be
oriented to 5th Street. However, the ARB notes that the change in the plan from two (2) buildings to
three (3) has created a site plan and road configuration that has a high potential of creating a
confusing and difficult site to navigate.
Regarding the preliminary site and architectural designs: The ARB offers the following
comments on the preliminary site plan and architectural design:
1. Revise the architectural design of Building A to reflect the traditional architecture of the area.
2. Revise the architectural design of Building A to provide additional detailing and better
proportions .above the awnings. Avoid the appearance of an over scaled sign band. It is
recommended that the applicant view recently approved projects in the Pantops and Rt. 29
corridors.
3. Provide material and color samples for review.
4. Provide additional detail to break-up the blankness of the side elevation bays of Building A.
5. Provide specs on the proposed window glass for Building A confirming that visible light
transmittance shall not drop below 40% and visible light reflectance shall not exceed 30%.
6. Provide a dumpster screen detail in the plan.
7. Provide complete lighting information for review. Eliminate up -lighting from the wall lights.
8. Clearly show all utilities and easements on the plan.
9. Increase planting.area to avoid planting and utility conflicts without reducing the amount of
landscaping proposed.
10. Increase the number of shrub species proposed so that the number of proposed shrubs for any
one species is limited to 25% of the total number of shrubs proposed.
11. Coordinate the plant schedule and the plan regarding the number of Inkberry Holly shown.
12. Include elevations for Buildings B and conceptual elevations for Building C with the next ARB
submittal. Provide sections to help understand grades relative to the ECs. A 3D visualization would
be helpful for understanding the design.
13. Clarify on the plans the wooded area to remain and show tree protection fencing.
14. Submit a comprehensive sign plan with the next ARB submittal.
VDOT
Comments provided by Troy Austin from VDOT are attached.
3
Fire/Rescue
-----The- following-comirients-wereprovided by Shawn -Maddox: ---
1. The buildings are showing sprinkler systems so a hydrant will be required within 50 feet of
the fire department connection. Building B will meet this requirement if built as proposed,
Buildings A and C will not. Additional hydrants will be required.
2. A Knox Box will be required for Building A and Building B. Contact the fire marshal's
office for information on ordering and installation location. (434-296-5833).
3. Travel lanes around fire hydrants and fire department connections shall be marked as fire
lane. Fire lane standard can be obtained from the Fire Marshal's Office.
SP Conditions
At this point in the review process, we anticipate that recommended conditions of approval for the
Special Use Permit will relate to the need for a bypass lane and the need for landscaping to satisfy
conditions of the Architectural Review Board.
Action after Receipt of Comments
After you have read this letter, please take one of the actions identified on "Action After Receipt of
Comment Letter" which is attached.
Resubmittal
If you choose to resubmit, please use the attached form. There is no fee for the first resubmittal.
The resubmittal date schedule is provided for your convenience.
Notification and Advertisement Fees
The Board of Supervisors amended the zoning ordinance to require that applicants pay for the
notification costs for public hearings. Prior to scheduling a public hearing with the Planning
Commission, payment of the following fees is needed:
$229.50 Cost for newspaper advertisement
200.00 Cost for notification of adjoining owners (minimum $200 + actual postage/$1 per owner
after 50 adjoining owners)
$429.50 Total amount due prior to Planning Commission public hearing
Prior to the Board of Supervisor's public hearing, payment of the newspaper advertisement for the
Board hearing needed.
$229.50 Additional amount due prior to Board of Supervisors public hearing
$659.00 Total amount for all notifications Fees may be paid in advance. Payment for both the
Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors public hearings may be paid at the same time.
Additional notification fees will not be required unless a deferral takes place and adjoining owners
need to be notified of a new date.
4
C)
Feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. My email address is
egrantnalbemarle.org .
Sincerely,
r1'
C... y6tt-�bl'i"e
Claudette Grant
Senior Planner, Community Development Department
cc: FTV Investments LLC
943 Glenwood Station Lane, Suite 101
Charlottesville VA 22901
enc: Action After Receipt of Comment Letter
Resubmittal Schedule
Resubmittal Form
VDOT comment letter
5
* The reviewing planner will contact applicant to discuss comments of reviewers and advise that changes that are needed are
significant enough to warrant an additional submittal or advise that the the project is ready for a public hearing. If changes needed
are minor, the planner will advise that the project go to public hearing.
** The legal ad deadline is the last date at which an applicant can decide whether to resubmit or go to public hearing. If an
applicant decides to go to public hearing against the advice of the reviewing planner, a recommendation for denial will likely
result. Generally, the applicant will will have only one opportunity to defer the PC public hearing for the project once it has been
advertised for public hearing. Additional deferrals will not be allowed except in extraordinary circumstances such as a major
change in the project proposal by the applicant or more issues identified by staff that have not previously been brought to the
applicant's attention.
2015 Submittal and Review Schedule
Special Use Permits and Zoning Map Amendments
Resubmittal Schedule
Written Comments -and Earliest Planning -Commission Public -Hearing* - ---
Resubmittal
Dates
Comments to
applicant for
decision on whether
to proceed to Public
Hearing *
Request for PC
Public Hearing,
Legal Ad
Payment Due **
Planning Commission
Public Hearing
No sooner than*
COB Auditorium
Monday
Wednesday
Monday
Tuesday
Nov -03-2
Dec 03
Dec 22
Jan 13
Nov 1 T,Y
Dec 17:,,...
Jan 05
Jan 27
-De Dec -0-1-----
Tue-Dee-30-
Jan 05
Jan 27
Dec 15
Jan 14
Feb 02
Feb 24
Jan 05
Feb 04
Feb 09
Mar 03
Tue Jan 20
Feb 18
Feb 23
Mar 17
Feb 02
Mar 04
Mar 16
Apr 07
Tue Feb 17
Mar 18
Mar 30
Apr 21
Mar 02
Apr 01
Apr 13
May 05
Mar 16
Apr 15
Apr 27
May 19
Apr 06
May 06
May 11
Jun 02
Apr 20
May 20
May 25
Jun 16
May 04
Jun 03
Jun 22
Jul 14
May 18
Jun 17
Jun 22
Jul 14
Jun 01
Jul 01
Jul 06
Jul 28
Jun 15
Jul 15
Jul 27
Aug 18
Jul 06
Aug 05
Aug 10
Sep 01
Jul 20
Aug 19
Tue Sep 01
Sep 22
Aug 03
Sep 02
Sep 14
Oct 06
Aug 17
Sep 16
Sep 28
Oct 20
Tue Sep 01
Sep 30
Oct 19
Nov 10
Sep 14
Oct 14
Oct 26
Nov 17
Oct 05
Nov 04
Nov 16
Dec 08
Oct 19
Nov 18
Nov 23
Dec 15
Nov 02
Dec 02
Dec 21
;.Jan::12::20.16
Nov 16
Dec 16
Dec2l
Dec 07
Jan 06
Jan .1.1:2016 ::.
"Feb.02.2016
Dec 21
Jarr 20.201677
eb`.01 20,16::
Feb:23 2016 :^
Jan 04 2016
Feb 03.2016
: 'Feb 08.20,16:;;::Mar:
01.2016
Bold italics = submittal/meeting day is different due to a holiday,
Dates -with shade& background, are not: 20.15
2016 dates are tentative.
* The reviewing planner will contact applicant to discuss comments of reviewers and advise that changes that are needed are
significant enough to warrant an additional submittal or advise that the the project is ready for a public hearing. If changes needed
are minor, the planner will advise that the project go to public hearing.
** The legal ad deadline is the last date at which an applicant can decide whether to resubmit or go to public hearing. If an
applicant decides to go to public hearing against the advice of the reviewing planner, a recommendation for denial will likely
result. Generally, the applicant will will have only one opportunity to defer the PC public hearing for the project once it has been
advertised for public hearing. Additional deferrals will not be allowed except in extraordinary circumstances such as a major
change in the project proposal by the applicant or more issues identified by staff that have not previously been brought to the
applicant's attention.
hJR U INULl Ua1 UJNI ] or $ Or Z11Y111 fh
Fee Aniount $ Date Paid By who?
Receipt # Ck# BY:
pY .11 p
Resubmittal of information for Special Use Permit or
- ----- ---- - — -- ---Zoning Map Amendment
PROJECT NUMBER: Zm(49Ula-&W-7 PROJECT NAME:1�C',t Get l q
Jyee�
Resubmittal Fee is Required ElPer Request EJ Rest, bmittal Fee is Not Required
Community Development Project Coordinator
Signature Date
Name of Applicant
Signature
FEES
Phone Number
Date
Resubmittal fees for Special Use Permit -- original Special Use Permit fee of $1,000
❑ First resubmission
FREE
❑ Each additional resubmission
$500
F 1 3 1 1 i/N - ) E 4 A F i.�t,Y �!!N �, hX yy41)
l 4:d. Y >'S..: E�1 ° , t^K. r. 1,�i3#..k: .. �, a3 f £`'�. if`f ^>7i.,.. ti..rx.,.5•... 5..t ,.. r , uf�:.T; C'` '� t 'S' ^�l E lb, tY F,i�x
> . )i.a�.^-., t ., .<-,. ,Y•...'�'°.>- ..r. K_Y�.,
rs'k..:0.f'"k. !.....x 3: ..
_ _4
Resubmittal fees for original Special Use Permit fee of $2,000
❑ First resubmission
FREE
❑ Each additional resubmission
J$1,000 y t
K..�-.,., c.{'Y 11 _ t ..l pt � t t:{C.i:. �:..1 Li e.. fit:.: -2N' .. F.i ..l .. xs$�' h� f ��Rd f t,. W� .Y 4k ai.cil � t Si ir` 1.` .✓�y i£ .
Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $2,500
❑ First resubmission
FREE
Each additional resubmission
$1,250
v t,s. �i 7t-.�. 5 �x is ISS I.X.. f�i.. :s :. � z>]vi, ::... � l `'. Si J.:�.a % of �} it `.i.::>G�11 �..� --�: �`` ...1..?;� si?h ; '�`1 :.1^i.•l�., i''?�•�s..:l� „� � � e t ) {l
Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $3,500
❑ First resubmission
FREE
❑ Each additional resubmission
$1,750
!.` IhT ti Y it ', LNIi �}� k:..4 -.. ^u 'Y...:i{:, 1. ~:.:>i 1f .,.�.....R .. ^..l ni::t ^Rf1 iT'>>s i `y4 �..�� f�5�
ff,
t3 x � -.3y. M1� f:�..,.k. I 1
Y
❑ Deferral of scheduled public hearing at applicant's request— Add'1 notice fees will be required
$180
To be naid after staff review for public notice:
Most applications for Special Use Permits and Zoning Map Amendment requite at least one public hearing by the Planning Commission
and one public hearing by the Boat•d of Supervisors. Virginia State Code requires that notice for public hearings be made by publishing
a legal advertisement in the newspaper and by mailing letters to adjacent property owners. Therefore, at least two fees for public notice
are required before a Zoning Map Amendment may be heard by the Board of Supervisors. The total fee for public notice will be
provided to the applicant after the final cost is determined and must be paid before the application is heard by a public body.
MAKE CHECKS TO COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE,/PAYMENT AT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COUNTER
i' Preparing and mailing or delivering up to fifty (50) notices
$200 + actual cost of first-class postage
$1.00 for each additional notice +actual
Preparing and mailing or delivering each notice after f fly (50)
cost of first-class postage
Actual cost
> Legal advertisement (published twice in the newspaper for each public hearing)
(minimum of $280 for total of 4 publications)
County of Albemarle Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Voice: (434) 296-5832 Fax: (434) 972-4126
6/7/2011 Pan I of I